The Oklahoma Legislature on Tuesday overrode the governor's vetoes of two abortion bills -- one requiring a woman to have an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before an abortion, and one protecting doctors from being sued if their withholding of information about the fetus "contributed to the mother not having obtained an abortion." (You can read the full text of the bills here, by entering measure numbers HB2780 and HB2656; the Oklahoman newspaper also has a synopsis of the bills.)

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

No they don't. They seem to go beyond justifiable policy debate and right-of-privacy differences of opinion. These laws seem to cross a line and get into dictating medical procedures and practices in a way that is unhealthy and, in some cases, seemingly downright dishonest.

No. And as a Catholic who is morally pro-life, I really do favor reasonable restrictions. I would like to see us, as a nation, do more to prevent and reduce abortions, but this is not the way to go about it. My test is always this: What if a woman I knew felt that she needed to make this choice? How would this policy affect her? For a woman who would not use abortion as afterthought birth control, a woman who might feel she needs to seek an abortion for medical reasons or for very personal moral reasons, the bill requiring a detailed explanation of the ultrasound is sickening. I cannot imagine forcing women to go through that on top of what may well be an already horrendous situation for he. I am in favor of requiring that certain medical facts be given to a woman before an abortion, but my support stops when the aim of the legislation is to punish women for the choice they are making with no regard to how they arrived at those choices. The lawmakers in Oklahoma who supported this should be ashamed of themselves. They do no service to the pro-life movement.

They are nowhere near reasonable. This is Legislature sticking its hands too far into the practice of medicine for political reasons.

I'm tired of lawmakers pretending that every woman seeking an abortion is some naive 16-year-old who is using it as a form of birth control and is unaware of the moral ramifications. There is far less of that than we'd like to pretend -- and far more instances of fully aware adult women forced to make excruciating choices because they or their fetus is not healthy.

And for legislators to pretend that they are doing this for the sake of the mothers' well-being is poppycock. Just compare the consequences of the two bills. One (HB 2780) ensures that a doctor can be sued if he does not give an ultrasound at least one hour before the abortion, including a medical description of the fetus. The other (HB 2656) ensures that a doctor cannot be sued if he omitted information about the condition of a fetus that "contributed to the mother not having obtained an abortion."

First, I'm not unsympathetic to controlling abortions. For example, I think teens should have to notify their parents that they are getting an abortion. But I think Oklahoma's law goes too far in detailing what doctors must do when giving a sonogram. This law inserts government way beyond where it should be in the practice of medicine. I'm also getting tired of targets being put on the backs of women seeking an abortion, and that's how this one feels to me. I rather folks who are opposed to abortion go after Roe v. Wade instead of pushing measures like this.

Let me preface this by saying. I haven't looked at these measures in much detail. But here are my quick and dirty asssessments.

In a perfect non political world, the ultra sound requiremnt would be simple full disclosure. But this is a political world and this is a disguised backdoor way to make an anti-choice case. Nonetheless, 'm not all that bothered by this measure.

That said, I'm really bothered by the tort protection for doctors. Doctors should give complete medical information to patients. I think it is up to the patient then to determine what's relevant, what isn't, and what course of action to follow..

I am pro-life, against abortion and the death penalty. The more information the better for women trying to decide whether to have an abortion. Many know their own mind and won't be swayed. Others are in a delicate place and may be grasping for help in making the most profound decision they have ever made. I think the law will save lives, and I'm for it.

No. The ultrasound requirement in particular goes too far, allowing lawmakers to dictate medical procedures instead of leaving that to medical professionals. I think it's reasonable to present women who are considering having an abortion with factual materials about terminating their pregnancy. Detailed written information is appropriate. Forcing women to endure an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus is a heavy-handed attempt to talk them out of making a legal and private decision to have an abortion.

Many women make this very difficult decision reluctantly -- whether they've been raped or the fetus is not healthy. Oklahoma lawmakers seem determined to make this decision much more agonizing and traumatic for women already facing tough circumstances.`

First off, I abhor the idea that some women and youths think of abortion as a form of birth control. People who think that way deserve to be exposed to ultrasound images and to hear an explanation of a fetus's development so they can better understand that this is the worst, most abominable form of birth control imaginable. And the men who get them pregnant also deserve to be exposed to these images.

Abortion is repugnant, and I favor measures that make it a rare occurrence. I favor measures that make the parents fully understand what they're doing. Once you've conceived a child, every subsequent step you take should be well-considered with full knowledge of the facts. If birth control were taught more effectively in school, I think we'd see abortion levels drop faster than using methods such as the one now being invoked in Oklahoma.

That said, I still want abortion to be available for those who choose it. I find it ridiculous when people like Tony Lauinger, of Oklahomans for Life, portray the Oklahoma law as somehow "protecting" the mother's mental health: "Many women suffer severe emotional trauma as a result of having had an abortion. With this, women will have the full benefit of having all the information. We believe the effort ... spares women from emotional or psychological distress that follows an abortion."

That's cynical political posturing at its worst. There can be no effect other than to induce extreme psychological distress by forcing the mother to watch an ultrasound of the fetus before the abortion is performed. I wish there were a middle road in this -- something that informs the parents about the choice they're making, makes abortion an extremely difficult choice to make, but also doesn't turn it into an exercise in cruelty aimed at punishing the mother and inflicting emotional pain on her.